 good morning. I wanted to, while we're waiting for Mr. O'Reilly to come with some new language that has been developing it by request that originates in some work done by the Conservation Law Foundation. It's just as more another take on PFAS for us to look at. But in terms of stepping away from that for a moment, I'd like to talk about calendar generally. So we have eight days. We have four this week. I mean, before we get back, we're trying to wrap up three bills, clean water bill, PFAS bill. We have four this week, four next week, then ten minutes. Oh, sorry. Yes. I misspoke. So we have basically eight days that I'm hoping that we'll use to finish up our work. Before Crossover. Yes. Who knows? Sometimes we end up with a little more wiggle than that. But to aim to be on that schedule in terms of the clean water work. So I met with Mr. Chapman on Friday, Michael Grady since, and there's some language. He's doing some drafting to help us have a next draft. We'll come back to it later this week. But in terms of the choices we had on the governance side of things, there was business as usual was one model. Another model said let's rely on RPCs to be an outside convener facilitator. There was also the A&R model of creating these district utilities. And I think we heard enough pushback on that utility model that the draft that's being developed presents sort of a hybrid model based on RPCs being the default convener at the state level. Again, with block grants out to people and an enhanced process to make sure that everyone at the table has an equal opportunity to present best projects and that's what we do for them. So you'll see language for that later this week. Meanwhile, we were turning back to PFAS while that language is being developed. And while all those parties at the table have a chance to digest that and provide additional feedback so we can use some tuning. And then next week we'll be getting two plastics as well as finishing up on water and PFAS. So that's the lay of the land. That's our calendar for the next eight days. Any thoughts, questions, suggestions, comments? Okay. With that then, as I mentioned, Mr. Ray has worked with Conservation Law Foundation on formalizing some language that they were proposing. And I just wanted to bring it before the committee as part of us thinking through how we might make progress on regulating PFAS in ground, sorry, in surface waters and in drinking water. So with that, Mr. Ray, thank you. We'll also be hearing from Mr. Chapman and Ms. Duggan to talk about it some more. There are aspects of this that I think that differ from S49. And maybe Michael, as you're working along, if there's major points of difference, you could help once or not. Because we have some choices to make as to how we regulate. My own preference is that we put ourselves on more fast-track timeline than a slower timeline for making those changes. Do you all have the proposed language that looks like Senator Rogers has it? Okay. So generally, just a refresher, S49 has introduced how to find a section regarding the presence of PFAS substances in the environment, the potential health effects, the Department of Health issuing a health advisory level, 20 parts per trillion for five of those substances, the ability of A&R to adopt them as an MCAL, but not as of yet, and to adopt a precautionary approach to the regulation of PFAS that the state should adopt MCAL, maximum contaminant level in drinking water for four PFAS, under the Vermont Water Supply Rule, that water quality criteria or effluent limitations for PFAS be established under the Vermont Water Quality Standards, that's for surface water. And that's standards for the treatment of landfill, VCH, prior to treatment in a wastewater treatment facility would be discharged, would be required prior to discharge to state waters. What the proposed language in front of you does is it still addresses an MCAL for the five PFAS substances in the water supply rule, directs the agency to undergo a process of whether or not an MCAL could be established for all PFAS categories or compounds, directs the agency to explore and then ultimately adopt a surface water quality standards for PFAS compounds, and then gives the agency ability to collect data regarding the sources of PFAS substances, and then directs or gives the agency the ability to require any permitted entity to undergo monitoring for a PFAS substance where there has been a Department of Health advisory level issue for that substance provided that that requirement would only be part of the permit for two years. So that's generally what happens, the bill has evolved, you'll see in page one, section one, there is the requirement for DEC's water supply rule to have a maximum contaminate level for PFAS. Page one, line six of A, you'll see on report February 2020, ANR shall file a final proposed rule with the Secretary of State and HELL CAR that adopts the Vermont Department of Health's advisory for PFOA perfluor octane sulfonic acid, perfluor hexane sulfonic acid, perfluor nonoic acid, and perfluor heptadonic acid as an MCAL. So you did that in S49 or Senator Bray proposed that in S49 but Senator Bray did it in a different way. Senator Bray's language actually amended the rule, the DEC water supply rule to establish 20 parts per trillion as the MCL for PFOA. This does it in a different way, just directs the agency to do it by a certain date. Now that February 1st 2020 date is the date that the rule will be filed with the Secretary of State and LCAR. LCAR has 45 days to review per statute and then per statute unless otherwise noted the effective date is 30 days from LCAR approval. So really the MCL for these PFOA, those five PFOA substances would go, PFAS substances would be mid-April of 2020 not February of 2020. Can we pause while we're here since it is a different route to get in there than the bills introduced. Can you say something about pros and cons of doing this route versus saying we already have these levels elsewhere and long? Let's borrow them and carry them over and apply them to water through statute. So a pro and con of what's the pro of S49 is that approach of amending the rule directly is that it goes into effect when you want it to go into effect on passage or at whatever date you want it to go into effect. So immediacy is probably the biggest pro there. Some people might say that that you're binding the agency by amending a rule through statute. I don't agree with that. I think this gives the agency the ability to amend this rule in the future if they wanted to. If you adopted the MCL and statute and not as part of the rule then there would be a lack of flexibility for the agency. But by doing it in rule the agency still has its rulemaking authority to amend. The pro of doing it, the agency that what's proposed in the alternative language is that you know the agency maintains that it's the expert on these issues and that they should be the one that is adopting standards that are health-based or science-based. Typically they do. They are that entity. And there is time in the rulemaking process to take in public notice and comment as part of the mandated public participation process so the agency can respond to particular or unique issues or concerns that are raised in that process. Is there a way to have a hybrid process so we can write it into a statute with an earlier effective date and then take off the rulemaking in case it should be revised up or down or expanded because we now characterize a sixth PFAS family chemical by next year? Sure. You did something similar in the dorm water interim rules in 2004. You adopted a statute or standard and said that that standard was in place until the agency adopted rules and the adoption of the rules effectively became a contingent repeal of that interim standard. Would it be inconsistent with rulemaking to say that the rule shall not be more lenient than the interim standard? That's prejudging the outcome of the rulemaking. You're the policymaking body. If you want to say that that's the delegated authority then you can say that as at least two of you know who served on Alcar Alcar and then not recently has been requesting more detail or more specificity in the delegation to the agencies of rulemaking. So that's up to you if you want to say that it can't be any less stringent department of health advisory level. I don't know what's happening in the document post but last week we were looking at a list of chemicals for which there are health advisories but there are no MCLs established. Is that and I'm just wondering if we're one if you could provide the committee with a copy of that and then we saw a question for the agency later on. I don't know why we would not move forward with an MCL when we have a health advisory established unless I'm misunderstanding the significance of a health advisory and the ability of the agency to create an MCL based on that. So why the agency doesn't go forward with an MCL for when there's a health advisory that's that's a question for the agency. They do have authority in the water supply rule. In my opinion they have authority to adopt it without going through rulemaking. There's a provision that says where there is a health advisory or a contaminant and no MCL has been issued. The agency can adopt the department of health advisory level as an MCL. I believe it's the agency's assertion that they would have to do that through rulemaking that doesn't make sense to me because they why would you need that language because they can adopt it as an MCL otherwise under their general authority to adopt an MCL they don't really need specific language to adopt by rule a health advisory but that's the agency my point is I don't necessarily think they need to adopt it by rule but that's the agency's interpretation they're the entity charged with implementing and so generally they get discretion in their interpretation. So what's the other legal tool that you define an MCL by that's not adopting? I think that they could just enforce it as as the answer right because they have that authority whenever it is 6-15. Your society has a statute that allows them to take health advisory into an MCL can you? It's not a statute it's in their water supply rule water supply rule section 6.15 says for contaminants which may be detected in a public water system for which MCLs or MCLGs have not been adopted and the Vermont commissioner of health has established a Vermont health advisory level for it the secretary may adopt the advisory level as an MCL or MCLG so that the key word there is adopt does that mean by rule or does it mean effectively suggested for it. My opinion you don't need this section if it's a requirement to go to rulemaking because they already have the ability to adopt an advisory level as an MCL. By the senator camping. But there's a couple things so this allows we're allowing the secretary of natural resources to basically have additional powers to protect people's health and the environment and we're giving it for just a two-year period or no. No. Just looking at page four. Well page four is it's not what we're talking about now right but yes that is an additional authority it gives the agency the ability to monitor the facility any permitted facility for any constituent for which a health advisory has been established. Generally the agency has in its permits ability to do reopeners and impose conditions but I think the issue here is generally that's for the chemicals that are regulated under that that area of law and so this is really about when there's chemicals of emerging concern to give them that specific authority to have that type of permitting condition permitting requirements when there's a health advisory. It doesn't specifically say chemicals of emerging concern which is probably good it's really just it's kind of bootstrapping on to their existing permitting authority and allowing it to go further and then those simplistic chemicals in existing programs so and it is only it would only be there for two years that effectively gets them two years to adopt a rule for that program. So what do you see as the greater impacts and you know of you know when we move forward with this what is sort of the positive ramifications well we're going to have people respond whether it's business or the state to do cleanups. Sure actually can we pause on that itself and I asked a bunch of questions that got us in the weeds a little bit on page one so maybe before we go into that good question if we finish the walkthrough then we'll be in a better position to see how that fits. So February 2020 you get an MCL for the five PFAS listed PFAS substances. Beginning August 1, 2020 the agency initiates a public notice and comment process and this is page one line 14 regarding regulation under the water supply rule of PFAS substances as a class or sub-proposal and an honor before March of 2020 2021 A&R either files a proposed rule to regulate PFAS substances as a class or sub-class under the water supply rule or it publishes a notice of why it is not doing that including the impairments to such a rule and then on page 2 by 9 if A&R proposes a rule to regulate PFAS as a compound or class under the water supply rule it files that rule by December 31st 2021. Page 2 line 14 section 2 this is a directive on number 4 January 15, 2020 for A&R to publish a plan for adoption of surface water quality standards for PFAS substances and at a minimum it shall address water quality standards for the five listed PFAS substances and then PFAS classes or compounds or sub-proposals and then on number 4 January 1, 2024 they file a final rule to adopt those surface water quality standards. I do note that EPA came out with an action plan for PFAS on last week and they note that one of their long-term actions is to determine if available data and research support the development of clean water at 304 ambient water quality criteria and then when adopted by states and tribes as water quality standards that can be used to set permit limits they have their timeframe as 2021 so there is some discrepancy about how much time is needed to develop the information to issue a water quality standard. EPA seems to say that they'll have that data by 2021 and the line which in front of you has 2024 that may account for rulemaking but I just wanted to note that it's a lot of rulemaking time. Okay well especially given that we're trying to pick up the dates but I know this is water which takes on flagging the line with EPAs at 2021. On PH3 line 11 section 3 this directs the agency on before may 1, 2019 to publish a plan for a complete statewide investigation of potential sources of PFAS contamination as part of the investigation may shall evaluate a representative portion of public water systems for the total oxidizable PFAS concentrations and they shall initiate implementation of the plan later than July 2019 in honor before July 2020 all public water systems shall conduct monitoring for the maximum number of PFAS detectable from standard laboratory methods for less specific PFAS. So my question there is across the EPA says that method 537 is an existing testing method that includes the Gen X chemicals and additional PFAS but they are developing new drinking water methods for additional short chain PFAS not measured by method 537. They think that the original revision of method 537 has already been done November 2018 and they will have additional methods in 2019 so there seems to be testing that would be available it doesn't say how much it costs. And the reference to total oxidizable PFAS concentrations is I understand that that's a test that is less specific and broader. Well it doesn't identify necessarily the specific PFAS it notes that there is a PFAS. So it's like a class. Thank you. Page 4, line 4, section 4, Senator Campion is questioning this does give the agency to require any permitted entity to monitor their facility, drainage, emission, or release pretty much every regulated activity that the agency has for which a health advisory has been established. They may impose conditions on a permitted entity based on the health advisory and then as Senator Campion noted it on page 4 lines of 13 it would only be there for two years but as I noted that likely gives the agency time to either do rulemaking or address the issue in their preliminary. Page 4, line 14 is 16, honor before January 2020 and I shall publish a guidance document for public review that sets forth a detailed practices for implementation of their ability to require any permanent entity to monitor and then honor before January 2020 they shall publish for public review and comment on a plan to collect data for contaminants and drinking water for which a health advisory has been established but no MCIL has been adopted. Everything goes under effect on passage. My one note on language is that this is all session law and I think for the rule directive in section one that's kind of a yeah you could do it by session law you could do it in statute section two the publish a plan that kind of makes sense to do in session law the investigation of potential sources that makes sense in session law but then section four page four line five sub a this seems to be ongoing authority to require these conditions there doesn't there is no repeal proposed that to me is something that should likely be in statute ongoing authority no time frame which it can be used no proposed repeal I think that would be something that would normally go in statute. So you're reminding me that sometimes I don't think about where things are going to land that way so in general if there is a change to law that's going to doesn't have a sunset built in we'll put it in or does have a it's not going to end at a certain point let me put it in if we have that kind of a date in the session law because it's temporary but otherwise the default is green books. Our general policy is is subject matter of limited duration or required by specific time frames that does not have ongoing effect we will put in session law the appropriations bill for example every year because by its own terms it is only good for that fiscal year unless otherwise noted it's all session because it's open limited duration unless otherwise noted. Any other questions from Mr. Aurea about so coming back to your question do you want to ask that again? Well just the impacts I guess what sorts of actions will we see in other words once you know levels that are certain you know standard or what sorts of things will start to happen the secretary will come in and you know mitigate those problems certainly there'll be people will know about those situations that kind of thing so I'm interested in it. Okay well we're going to hear from both Mr. Chetlin and Ms. Duggan and they're more the authors of this so I think that'll be good to ask them while you're promoting this construct in particular. I will say a little repetitious that what's troubling about work so far on this is how we are perpetually hamstrung by the amount of data we have we can never assert anything beyond something for which we already have an MCL if you can do five a year or ten a year and you have a list of 5,000. And in part I guess we're in a bad trajectory. Back to some of our conversations we've had around other waters upstream are there things we might want to add to this that would prevent additional further contamination. Well for example you know I know that we have you know there are other PFOA related bills either in this committee or in health and welfare are there things that should be attached to this to prevent contamination from continuing. No I see. So stop adding. Stop adding and in addition to measure it. Well I think part of the issue with PFAS and the other comical concerns is you don't know that they're being used. There's no requirement for many of them for it to be noted in a toxic use reduction plan because most of them are not going to be listed under the toxic substances in that sub chapter. Many of them are not EPRA emergency planning a community right to know at actually one of the things that EPA recommends in their action plan is reviewing whether or not to add it to the section 313 EPRA chemicals. So you're saying for example there's I mean it's hard to regulate something that you don't know with there. Right for example you drafted a bill for us related to keeping PFOAs out of food packaging. You're saying again we don't know that it's even in food packaging it would just be prohibiting any kind of manufacturing or use of it in the state of something like that were to pass or all we know it could be there may be nothing. Right and so the bill that you had drafted based on Seattle law or actually Washington state law it requires that food packaging not have a PFAS substance if there isn't otherwise available safe alternative and so that requires a review by the by the manufacturer in order to sell in the state. So we're talking about for most part just establishing standards monitoring stuff like that so that we know if you start doing what you're talking about there and restricting is that restricting use of commerce or just notification? They are both just notifications. Technically under the toxic use reduction program we just have a plan that ultimately leads to the reduction of the use of a chemical but then the agency may correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that plan is voluntary. Any other questions from Mr. Grady? Thank you very much. Thank you. I'd like to invite Ms. Duggan to join from the table. Yeah okay. So thanks for your work. I'm bringing forward some more language for us to be able to consider as we push on trying to figure out how to do better out of PFAS. Do you want to talk a little bit about this construct versus what's in S-49? Sure yeah and I think first I'll start off by just highlighting the fact that addressing PFAS contamination in the state is much larger than this particular bill and so you know there because we've talked about this in the past when you have emerging contaminants that are not on regulatory lists they're not monitored they're not being regulated through all the pollution control statutes you know the the toxic use reduction act statute you know there is a need to address it in a comprehensive way and there are lots of you know there are several bills this session that have been introduced that aim to get at that with respect to vans and products and related to liabilities for people that have been exposed so this you know our suggested language is really focused on drinking water and surface water and so I think that I want to be clear and say that you know this is not all that we think needs to happen in terms of actually proactively addressing these toxics in the state but this is a step and is really focused on drinking water and surface waters. You may recall that conservation law foundation petitioned the agency of natural resources to set a drinking water standard. We asked them to immediately adopt the health advisory and then initiate a process to set a standard for the class or subclass. The agency granted that petition with respect to the health advisory and said that they would continue to work on evaluating you know how to regulate as a class or subclass. This the the legislation that you know the proposal that the language that we put forward is really to ensure that the agency is accountable to actually getting that work done and so you'll notice that there is a deadline for taking those actions both in terms of immediate adoption of the health advisory and then also that public process for evaluating regulation as a class or subclass. And that's 2024 correct? That would be so so for a drinking water standard for the class that process would start on August 1st 2020 and you'll notice that the deadline for the collection of data the water system data that has to be done by July 1st 2020. So that data collection will have been done so that can feed into that process for how we you know how the agency would regulate keep us as a class or subclass. There's also a deadline to adopt a surface water quality standard and we've talked about the deadlines to complete the investigation of both potential sources of PFAS contamination meaning what types of facilities do we expect PFAS to be released from you know the EP the ANR has done some work to evaluate that but there is still a long list of potential sources like car washes and tanneries and paint manufacturers and schools that the agency will still need to investigate and then there is a deadline for all water systems to do comprehensive PFAS testing. So we would propose that it would be the maximum number of PFAS that can be quantified and that number changes fairly frequently. There is an EPA method but most labs are also running what's called a modified EPA method 537.1 so they're actually testing for between 30 and 40 of these compounds. You just say something because you had introduced me to this total oxidizable PFAS test so can you fill us in on what that is able to do compared to what the 537.1 does? Sure so there are certain labs that are running a total oxidizable precursor assay it's called a top assay and that researchers and labs are scrambling to figure out how do we actually measure total PFAS how can we see the total PFAS load in water and soil this is one method that attempts to get a better sense of what the PFAS load could be so I'm not a chemist and you really want to talk with a chemist before you know really getting a full understanding of it but what you know sort of high very high level the the water is basically run for all the PFAS that can be quantified and then there is a chemical reaction that happens to force the breakdown of other PFAS into the compounds that can be quantified so you get a before number and an after number so it's not it does not give you total PFAS it you know it's not certified by EPA but it is another investigative tool to better understand the total PFAS that is in water or soil. And on the earlier we talked about an organofloring test is top just a more specific version. No those are two different things and there are some researchers that have identified extractable organofloring test method as a surrogate for total PFAS but it's my understanding that commercial labs are not running that test at this time that it is used on you know in smaller scale in academic laboratories but not commercially. And then one other test I've seen listed I think it was called MLA 110 not 532nd. I don't know. Now it doesn't. Okay. He's making it up. Modern Language Association 1. Right. Okay so I'll leave that one aside. All right thanks I just want to make sure we know the details of what we're looking at. Thank you. I think the other thing I would just highlight is that Section 4 provides the agency with additional authorities to require monitoring to basically assess for where an emerging contaminant may be in the state. And the deadlines also you've highlighted the fact that we have health advisories where we have not established an MCL where the agency has just not taken action. So this would require that the agency propose a plan for how they would close that gap between the health advisories that have been established in MCL and where there has been no MCL set. Anything else you want to say about how this is set up or I mean one thing we've talked about a little bit is data collection. So we were talking a little earlier about the I was saying hamstrung by data collection. So we want to do good work. We want it to be science-based. At the same time there's the frustrating foreseeable vision of saying if we're picking up 20, 30 chemicals a year and it's class of 5,000 it's a very long process to characterize all those. And is there any precedent for saying we've characterized a sufficient number to now be legitimately legally concerned about the class as a whole and we're going to take a more precautionary approach towards addressing the whole. Have we done that with any other chemicals and is that something that you could imagine us getting to in something like this? Well I think that EPA has done that with respect to disinfection byproducts for a much smaller number of compounds. They've said we don't actually have toxicity information for one of these, one of the assets in that grouping but we have enough information to regulate these compounds together anyway. I think that PFAS, you've heard from Dr. Vos, there are different types of PFAS. So there are long chain and short chain. There are C8, C7, C6, 5, 4 and so it may be possible to regulate PFAS in terms of subgroups or more than one group. But there are, I think that we have enough information to know that all of these PFAS are not going to be good. But there are differences between the different structures and so part of the thought behind requiring a deadline for the agency to consider this in a meaningful and transparent way with deadlines and data collection is to have that conversation about how we can regulate these as either a total class or a subclass rather than continuing to play this game of whack-a-mole and ketchup that we are never going to win. Are you aware of any other states or jurisdictions that have taken a broader approach to PFAS, like the class approach? Not at this time. I mean I think that there are lots of states that are talking about how to get out from under this chemical by chemical approach but I am not aware of any state that's moving forward and setting a drinking water standard for total PFAS. So there are some states that have banned, I think Washington has instituted a ban on PFAS and firefighting foam or there might be bans and you know other products but I'm not aware of any state that has set a drinking water standard for total PFAS. We were discussing testing before outside of committee time and you, as I remember you were saying, there are chemicals that can show up in some of the private lab panels on PFAS but they're not allowed to explain what they're finding because they're covered in some way by patent law or inter-proprietary information to intellectual property, something along those lines. Can you explain correctly what that was about? One of the frustrating and really egregious aspects of the PFAS situation is that many of these compounds, the structure itself is, patented is confidential and so we can't know what that structure looks like. They may be able to, certain labs may be able to run a test and quantify particular compounds that we can't see so you know the public may go to a particular lab and say I want you to run, I want you to quantify as many PFAS as you can and the lab may come back and say here's a list of 40 that you the public can see but they may actually be able to quantify more than 40 but those are just patented, they're protected. So I'm sorry what allows the public then to be aware of those and not others what's happening? They're not they're not protected, the chemical structure itself is not under patent and so it's something that you know that my organization is investigating but it's very that is one of the challenges with a class it's this large where you have some compounds that are still protected under patent law. Is that because they're newer and there's like a statutory limitations on those kinds of things? I don't know the answer to that question but it's something that we're investigating because it's it you know the public has a right to know what types of toxics are in their community and they're drinking water. So the sample that I brought to the lab were my own blood plasma blood and they ran these panels and they found some of these protected chemicals patented chemicals in my blood would they be unable to tell me that those things were present? I can't answer that question I think that it's unlikely that they would it would depend on who's running it and for what reason I just can't answer that question yeah the perverse outcome. Well if your neighbor was polluting you when they found it who asked the neighbor if they had that chemical would they be allowed to say we don't have to tell you? Well one of the things that I think we've talked about before and that is part of a comprehensive strategy to address PFAS is to require it's basically to require reporting under our state emergency planning and community right to know act we have specific state standards so you know we can do that the state could do that through rulemaking and actually add these to the list of things that need to be reported things that are released in the environment and I think you know Mr. O'Grady mentioned also Tax Exuse Reduction Act adding that to the list of things that companies have to disclose, consider, and then plan for how to reduce. Any other questions? So thank you very much for helping us think our way along this learning curve. I think by Mr. Chappan to join us on the table. Good morning. So you've heard the conversation so far and I don't know just for lay of the land are you more supportive of this approach to working on this topic than the underlying S-49 though? You know I think that the proposed that CLF has laid out with respect to having a number of you know fairly aggressive timelines for the agency to consider various standards is acceptable to us. I think that folks should understand that the timelines that are in their review is being relatively aggressive especially you know there are no resources being allocated in this so this is basically taking people who are already doing work and adding additional work that they're going to need to do on some fairly complicated topics and we think that it's it's reasonable that we can do it within the time frame that they've put out there. If we propose something that was working on a timeline that wasn't compatible with your current staffing is that something you would point out to us? I mean I think that the underlying bill has significant resource limitations. I don't think that some of the things that are are in that bill you know certainly there is staffing in resource limitations I'm not even sure with enhanced staffing and resources that they can be done within the time frames that are laid out. Is there associated permanent structure that could legitimately raise fees to help support additional work? So I don't know if I mean just sort of starting you know just to address one issue that got raised with respect to the agency's authority to adopt health advisories as MCLs. The agency's interpretation of its own rules is that that particular adoption in order under federal guidance to adopt an MCL we're supposed to go through an incremental cost benefit analysis looking at various levels of risk and the cost associated with implementing treatment for them. It's the agency's interpretation we put that in there to basically say we don't need to go through that incremental cost benefit analysis in order to adopt a health advisory as a standard. You know we've looked at we have had similar provisions in other rules giving us informed standard authority and they've you know we have concerns about our ability to do that absence express statutory authority and you frankly have given us the authority to adopt emergency rules and we think that's the more appropriate and laid out way to address emerging issues and we've used it when we have to with respect to PFAS. So I'm not sure from like the bill itself do you want me to speak to the underlying bill? Do you want me to talk about CLF's proposed amendment or other specific issues you want me to go through? I can do that. Sure. So I actually would start saying a few things about the findings in the underlying bill. I think it's unwise to speak as pet speak to PFAS as a class our knowledge as to PFAS differ depending upon which you're talking to and some of the some of the statements in these findings are inaccurate when they relate to the state's understanding for example subdivision for saying we need more research to determine health affects to humans from exposure and environmental exposure to PFAS. There are five PFAS compounds the state disagrees with that on so we have sufficient information to determine an adverse health a correlation between adverse health impacts and levels of PFAS in the environment so I guess I would just say would sort of caution folks speaking to them broadly as a class I would also say that with respect to subdivision too there is a pretty broad set of commercial and industrial products that contain PFAS within the state range you know coatings and commercial other commercial products so I just think it's important to to say that that represents a very small subset of what is out in the environment and in the stream of commerce so with respect to adopting an MCL I guess the agency strongly prefers the approach that is NCLS proposal to the proposal here you know it's it's atypical for the legislature to adopt an administrative rule by statute and I guess my concern with respect to this is that every standard the agency has adopted with respect to PFAS has been challenged in court and it's unclear to me how the standard challenges in the administrative procedures act would apply to or the judicial review sections in the administrative procedures act would apply to this section because the underlying sort of foundation that exists in administrative rulemaking will not have taken place and normally some of those things from our economic impact statement public participation etc are a basis for an administrative challenge to the the rulemaking so it's just I think there needs to be some additional thought and clarity given to what the interrelationship is between the legislature adopting a rule and the the APA and the traditional rulemaking process it's it's not clear to me and it raises concerns in my mind but to be clear the you're saying you're in support of the what you just shared with us we found you know we generally find it acceptable I mean I think that that the agency can live with a set of rulemaking deadlines associated with the adoption of the consideration and adoption of the five PFAS compounds in NCLS so I guess with respect to so is it if we adopt as a temporary measure and kick off a rulemaking so that there's this hybrid so that we can have an earlier effective date is that address your concern because the rulemaking process will take place it depends when anyone would challenge the step I mean setting aside the interest here I mean I think there's some things that we would look at first of all is you know when would people need to test the water system with respect to these MCLs we would these are things that are likely going to be in the rulemaking so when testing is required do we need to have a a confirmatory sample with respect to that because PFAS testing is notoriously there are a lot of cross-contamination issues associated with the manner by which you collect these tests and we found that in a number of times when we've gone out and done these tests and then I think that then it's a question of okay the container the fact that you're wearing some clothing that's not sterile and it may have PFAS on it and it contaminates the container so we'll see it in the trip blank and in the the the actual sample itself so there are a number of cross-contamination issues that exist when you do this and we've actually had tests come back positive when we've resampled in multiple times again they they show no PFAS in them and our best guess and that normally the the sort of you use a set of confirmatory samples along with the actual analytical sample that you're taking to see whether there's a problem and with respect to that analytical sample and we've seen that so there's been lab issues there's been clothing contamination or equipment contamination issues so those are things so those issues and then I think the question is that we're going to have to is the agency resolve in the context of this rulemaking is treatment you know and when we apply treatment and how long do people have to put treatment on and I think that the challenge is if anyone you know has gone through the the drinking water physical plant enhancement process it's it's not an overnight process you'd have to do the bonding process and so forth so not all of these are likely to have an existing PRP who's going to be able to assuming we find it they're not all likely going to have a PRP who can do the work a responsible party to do the work in which case the community would bear the thoughts of doing it through a bond boat and that's what an MCL does so pause any other questions or I'll move on to the the surface water so so with respect to the surface water sample our reading my reading and we haven't received a whole lot of guidance from EPA on what they put out is their 2021 deadline is a literature review to see whether we should set a drink or a criteria pollutant for standards not the actual establishment of the standard itself and normally EPA when it goes through that standard the actual development process they they're not quick they're normally five to ten years of a process to adopt those standards you know the agency is comfortable coming back with a plan next year we've already had conversations with the state of New Hampshire and New EPIC which is basically the water program directors in New England and in some mid-Atlantic states to talk about doing this doing the data collection sort of the analytical work regionally try to reduce costs and then have you know the states look at setting the standards individually knowing that we're not all going to you know Vermont maybe looking at 20 New Hampshire is looking at 70 New York is a 10 you know 10 in 10 so we're all kind of in different spots and we think we think that's an approach that can work and we think getting it done by 2024 is frankly ambitious I mean that that would cause us we think it's doable but it's ambitious and we think it gives us enough time to come back to you next year basically with a report that says this is what we would need to do this is the staff resources in the budget we would need to do it and these are the other entities that we'd be working with rather than just adopting something so I've mastered from many years with Senator McDonald and this is the point at which he asked the question do you know how long World War two took to conduct or something like that you should ask you're in the U.S. involvement yeah it was participation in World War two would have been starting to be completed in the last time that you're proposing the final rule I can't speak to that I don't know so but you've said that's the quickest you can well I mean I guess I guess if the legislature wants to use its policy making it for you to adopt a standard without the foundation the agency would go through I mean we're we're going to set a standard the way the agency would set a standard for any other contaminant which means that we're going to look at at the contaminants impact on ecological species to determine at what level it's safe you know that's that's what we do if we've talked to the chair and I briefly talked about the paradigm that which within which the agency works and we are a science-based agency we look at we both develop data and then also look at existing data in order to try and set standards that are protective of human health in the environment but at the core they're they're based on what we know so this is going to we are not at a point where there are a number of states who are out in front of us where we can borrow from them and replicate this data this is where we're sort of out in front my understanding is we're out in front on this one and we'll have to be developing a lot of this on our own which is why we're looking for other jurisdictions to work with this is normally a task we would leave to the federal government we are not confident that the federal government would move with the degree of speed which we think is appropriate here the interim standard for what we're going to wait until 2024 to come up with a so I can't tell you what concentration is the appropriate conference concentration for the five PFOS compounds in surface water so in the meantime while you're waiting to tell us that what should happen to take place amongst us well again I think that that we've said that we're going to get we're coming up with a plan to work as quickly as we can to get the data that we need to move this forward we're not coming forward with a recommended interim standard because we don't have a foundation upon which to tell you what the appropriate number is so the so the other things that are in the proposal that CLF laid out were a requirement for the agency to finalize its testing plan and test for a total oxidizable PFOS amount in a selection we have significant concerns with the requirement to test for total oxidizable which is an S-49 it's in the CLF proposal it's not in the underlying bill and you know our concern is that this is not a quantitative test it's a qualitative test there's no quality controls around this methodology that if you take two samples collected at the same time from the same source water and send them to two labs that run top assay you will get wildly varying results from those samples this is not a reliable test at this time top assay is used in other sort of fields like with chlorinated solvents my understanding is you could close chlorinated solvents and elsewhere and it's been refined it has not been refined at this point and I think the agency would be concerned there are a number of false positives from our our chemists have basically told us there are a number of false positives associated with this test and until there's a better quality control around it we do not recommend using it because we don't know what it tells us is that because different labs are running different versions of that test like that's a there's there is no there is no there is no version of it there's no sort of standard methodology my understanding talking with the chemists who've done work on this internally is there's no standard methodology and set of quality controls around this testing protocol yet again we're sort of at the leading part of of the science around this and EPA hasn't developed it normally goes through a process develop a testing protocol and then there's there's consistency amongst labs and one of the things that's really important to agencies using this in a sort of applied setting is we want to feel confident that the number we get is is roughly speaking replicable amongst multiple different labs and we're we're not seeing that with this methodology at this time I'm wondering if Ms. Dougan would respond to that the testing piece well I would I mean I will agree that there is no EPA test method for using this approach I don't have access to the same information that Mr. Chapman has in terms of other chemists and what they are experiencing I've just you know I've consulted with one lab that is running the test and I think I'm doing this work that's doing this work where's that lab they there is a burly it's test America so there's a Sacramento lab and I'm happy to send a white paper on the test and more information so thank you so we had concerns with that but with respect to the rest of it the agency the agency is developing a a testing plan currently we're going to prioritize sort of public assets drinking water systems waste water treatment facilities things that are near drinking water sources and and we think that the time frame that's that's laid out is acceptable so I think the I actually don't have a copy of the most recent here thank you my best friend that's how I don't know where your notes yeah good idea Chapman says this I know it happens all the time we dug in with all the thinking so the the last so the the so there's a section that basically requires that the agency is often in from uh uh establishes interim environment in their environmental media standards for anything that's um the health advisory's been established for and the agency's supportive of this one of the challenges that we have as a science for the emergence and this is beyond PFAS is trying to figure out what the scope of the problem and what the scope of the problem is with respect to that presence in the natural environment of a particular contaminant we think that you know while Mike's right we could reopen permits and require people to test this is a much more straightforward way and and it basically authorizes us to test any time there's a an emerging contaminant that the health advisor has been established for and that'll help us prioritize which ones move forward to the actual standard development route and go through rulemaking and which ones frankly they may be an emerging issue but they're not present and not a problem and maybe less of a concern when faced with other challenges I'd only add the other thing that this does is it it allows the agency if there is an sort of imminent and substantial endangerment to human health as a national environment to put conditions on the discharge of that particular contaminant um so I will stop there I guess the the only other thing to sort of go I don't the only other thing that's out there is um the change with respect to 6605 and landfill permitting and I I would just say I'm concerned about the proposal that is there um for a couple reasons one is we have five landfills in the state that generate leachate their lined landfills with leachate collection um we've talked about one we haven't talked about the others at this time um unlike other sort of industrial and commercial sources you can't turn landfill leachate off um it's not something that you can just punch about and then it goes away this is uh practically water that's flowing through um or has was infiltrated into a landfill and so it needs it needs to be at some point pumped the final frankly the more technical issue is it's unclear to me what the standard is for the agency to authorize a wastewater treatment facility to take this leachate it just says that the agency shall get prior approval to it I think one of the agency's biggest challenges right now is you know trying to figure out what the appropriate level for PFAS and frankly other contaminants are in surface waters um to deal with this very issue and we're we're working on it but we're not we're not there yet so I think that those treatment plans aren't taken not sure to stop out of leachate are they you know we're I do we know seems to me if they're if they're putting it into wastewater treatment facilities that there are some things that wastewater facilities are designed to take out there's a whole bunch of things in that leachate that they are not designed to take out there's a whole bunch of things in wastewater that they're not designed to take out and so I think the biggest challenge so I I would I I think it's clear senator that the treatment facilities are not designed to take out PFAS right I can't tell you there are there appears to be concentrations in sludges that are higher than either the influent or the affluent on wastewater treatment facilities there's also I think that everyone should acknowledge that landfill leachate is one of many contributing sources of PFAS to wastewater treatment facilities of a whole bunch of that's right I agree so I'm not and they and PFAS is one issue in landfill leachate and frankly in influent wastewater going into a wastewater treatment facility but I think sometimes I think the people think that okay it's been through a wastewater treatment facility and it's coming out clean and I think we underestimate the number of nasty things that are coming out the pipe on every wastewater treatment facility that there's a whole bunch of things that we don't test for and there's a whole bunch of nasty things coming out those pipes well I think what we first started on this bill is that this is like a small door into a very big room with a lot of other things okay so we need to stop there thank you very much for the walkthrough and the comments and answering questions and we'll need to come back to it I do I do have a very short question I'm going to break my own rule so why do chemicals live on the list as health advisories and A&R doesn't choose to carry them over to MCLs you know it's a complicated question I mean I think the simple response is the trying to look at what the treatment technologies are that exist to treat those chemicals what the cost would be to municipal drinking water systems normally that analysis takes place before we list something that we have a health-based standard for as a an MCL or a public community drinking water supply standard that's the typically yes yes so we're changing gears so looking at the final version of the emissions amendment for s84 as the drafter so we'll need to get a cleaned up version for the calendar but this one still highlights the last round can you close the door please okay so everyone wish you have graph five two which is a little unusual and that it still includes helpful reminders of what we were last adjusted and can you just please remind us again of where we settled on yeah have we sort of is there a settle right so this same process is being replicated or are you happy to cross the hall beautiful oh I see why the name's on it your name is on it I still this for the records part 10 versus 15 but just me okay so good morning for the record and the extracurricular legislative council um as senator ray mentioned this draft still has some highlighting indicated in what has changed since the last version you saw which was 4.1 um so the only changes are that instead of there being that language which I can read for you since it's not here that says the agency of natural resources and the department of environmental conservation are supposed to try and get the lowest possible model year look back in their back and forth with the EPA which would be paralleled and the rulemaking that happens by the DMV this is just a 15 model year look back to be consistent across the board with what the state of Vermont is saying they want to have the fair inspections and maintenance program and in that same paragraph I'm at the top of page two we deleted the establishment of the goal we were rate of less than three percent um that would still be something that would presumably and I believe that chapter to speak to this be part of the back and forth with the um environmental protection agency but not wetting the rulemaking to that by way of updating senate transportation looked at this exact same amendment version this morning they indicated that they would support this amendment however they too liked their earlier version going to support the amendment they would support the amendment if the amendment went forward in this version thank you and by way of what we compromised on was inherent as I understand it that the waiver rate of less than three percent is still inherent in 40 CFR 51 s and could be achieved in those negotiations but it's not explicitly listed is that the correct way of saying the waiver rate will be a part of the program that is contained and there is currently nothing in the periodic inspection manual that even speaks to the waiver rate in that this program has only existed for about a month it became effective January 15th of 2018 and then the 15 year model 15 model year full or less piece was uh transportation I would say was uncomfortable that the negotiations they said well what if it led to an agreement at 20 years so they wanted to know that coming out the other end it wouldn't be any more um permissive or it burdens I mean whatever however you want to say depending on your point of view then 15 years so it's just written into the process and so there is current is there a current hardship wait so that's part of law it is not a it's not part of law it is not part of the inspection manual is part of the department of motor vehicles current practice based on session law in the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill and transportation bill from last session it's not a hardship waiver it is a high cost waiver set at 200 dollars that is lower than what the implementing regulations for the clean air act say it should be and that is in part to try and have it um be available to more for Monter's we know if anyone has yes yes uh can we have numbers on that uh if you give me one second I spoke a little of the dealership this weekend and um they found customers had a two very difficult owners to get multiple phone calls and the dnb to figure out the dealership won't deal with it they put the back on the customer sure they don't want to live well that's what I was thinking is that the only people I've heard from are people who have had trouble at the place they're trying to get their car inspected I haven't heard of anybody that has gotten the waiver or was satisfied with the process 187 waivers have been issued since um yes thank you well one reason I I mean there are a number of reasons I support this but I don't I think we need these vw dollars and I hear that we could be in jeopardy if we don't move in this direction so um and that's probably in part what transportation is thinking also but the bottom line is that if they were actually testing the emissions coming out the end pipe and saying these cars are polluters maybe I've changed my mind but what we are testing is the test equipment we're not testing the emissions and so I'm going to stick with the 10 as well okay well it's a very complex problem and I I have struggled with it the entire conversation because I don't want people not fixing small cost components because they can get away with not fixing them and it's to their own detriment but on the other hand I've just heard from so many of my constituents that the shops are giving them a hard time and they can't get through the process well that seems like implementation more than what the underlying rule or statute or I'm not I'm not dismissing it right I'm just saying that if they have the 10 years it gives them more leverage to say well what's the problem how much is it going to cost that the garage can't say you have to fix this or I don't inspect your car and that's what's happening in a lot of places right now and unfortunately I think it's being used in a lot of places to charge to do work that doesn't always need done and because they have them over a barrel I'm not giving you a sticker unless and most people wait till last week to get their cars back anyway yeah mine's due at the end of February it's coming in next week I try to wait a couple extra days that way you get the next month every year so we've been calling it a hardship waiver isn't it actually a I've heard high cost it has a high cost waiver it is not a hardship waiver the two types of waivers that part of the state implementation would be a hardship waiver and would be a high cost waiver I believe in this committee it could have been a transportation you heard testimony about difficulties in implementing the hardship waiver and that the dmv is not really in the business of confirming income and inspection stations certainly aren't in the business of confirming income and I believe in John please correct me if I'm wrong you Hampshire there's one person who's sort of designated as the person who makes a determination on hardship so under current law and practice and the amendment as proposed we're not creating a hardship waiver and out the high cost waiver exists in session law you are not changing anything about the waiver program the existence of the waiver program is a due to there being language in session law from last year saying department of motor vehicles go establish a waiver program we need to go back with the language but I do not believe that that set any parameters around the waiver program and the waiver program was designed to go into effect on January 15th 2019 which is when the conditional pass stopped being an option and that was when without regard to how much it was going to cost to fix your car if you failed the admissions inspection component you got a sticker and you were given a conditional pass that was the same conditional pass you were given if your vehicle wasn't ready for the admissions component part of the inspection the reboot it could have been that it was rebooted it could have been that someone had tampered with it any number of reasons why your car would not be ready um so I you know I to your point center um Rogers about it's it could be that the instrument the sensor that's out not the admissions that are out of whack um I don't know I don't know an answer to that you know be like if you have pulled over and you could say my speedometer is not working that's why I'm speeding then that would make sense either well if you're speeding you're speeding what I'm saying is that we're not measuring they have not working it's supposed to be changing your ratio of your time well you're saying it's still working but not accurate that's that's a possibility once you've got a speeding ticket you would know that it wasn't working unless the police who pulled you over and said they pulled it what year's your car oh you're good to go um no speeding because we don't worry about broken speedometers on older cars so you know so we'll we're out of where we are but uh here we are so if you're over 10 years old it's the lights on whatever you would be after this amendment pass you'd be subject to an admissions test if the repair cost more than 200 200 dollars or more you could ask for a high-cost waiver and in which case it'd be granted once for that mechanical problem and the year by the time your next inspection came due a year later you either have to fix it or move down to another vehicle have we been in the process do we know what the process is to get that waiver I know how long did it take if you get your inspection out last time I went out of form and sent it into the department waiting for a response can you fill us in on how the 200 dollars or more high-cost waiver is executed certainly I'll try and do a high-level overview so today if you fail the test you are instructed that you will need to check to see if the to get a diagnostic performed to understand what the problem is from there you'll need to understand if that is covered by warranty or not so you'll need to check the manufacturer's representative then or understand and know that it's not covered because of its age or whatever and then you'll need an estimate the shop can then take and ask you those questions do you want to apply for this waiver program they will put in the repair cost and ask that the consumer has checked and that there is no warranty coverage available for that and then they today in the interim process they call the 800 number and are asked the mechanic has asked those questions and they respond to them that will all be software based by the end of next week or our current productions testing on that is going well so that will all be in the software the mechanic will and ask answer those questions in the software take a picture of the estimate and business rules again was it greater than 200 dollars was the vehicle failed for something other than readiness and was the vehicle not failed for having the DTS the court tampered with as long as all of those business rules are satisfied the software moves on to issuing a we have been trying to get information out on how to do that there are rat cards okay so who's eligible for a hardship well so it's not hardship it's high cost who's eligible for high cost anyone with a repair that will be the repair exceed 200 dollars or more and those other conditions no tampering there's no warranty that could cover it for you otherwise having gone past that hurdle your vehicle is now usable by you for no one one more year after the year has passed you would need to make the repair one thing that hasn't come up is the waiver is attached to the vehicle so in that one year you were to sell your vehicle without making any repairs the person who bought it would have the remainder of that one year testing cycle to make the repairs or move on to another vehicle they wouldn't be able to go in and say this is news to me I want another one here depending on what the state inspection requirements are so we're not going to vote this as a committee most of us came into this committee room at the beginning of the session which was this is the year we were going to make some advances in reducing pollution and global warming and particulates in the air and the transportation committees were the ones who were going to be the lead on that I'd like to get out of here with a net reduction in in greenhouse gases and reduction in pollutants and not just take this half a step backwards it is more polluting but it seems to go right after our neighbors who can't afford new cars and they get stuck with the repairs where they buy used cars and in the absence of having some plan that gets less polluting new cars on the road for citizens to buy as used cars a couple years later we're just putting the burden on those safety people so I think it's it's until last until the waiver program that was just created was it not correct that all vehicles were subject to emission standard testing from 90 mile a year 96 and on correct so 96 and newer gas powered and I believe it's 97 and newer diesel powered and then there is a weight gross vehicle weight being of 8500 pounds or less so this problem potentially has been there all along and is it that we're seeing a higher incidence of reports of it by virtue of the fact that now we're doing electronic testing things that somehow were getting passed are now being flagged because the umber diagnostics flat right so right so correct so there were no rules implement new no rule changes implemented with the evap system but it is the system is electronically collecting that data directly from the computer no human is reading those results and then entering them separately so no rule for we might call it discretion all right so thank you everyone for filling us in on the details of this I'm gonna bring this up to the senate secretary be in notice calendar tomorrow and action Thursday I think it's the schedule so everyone can see it and I thank you for helping I you know center mcdonnell to your point maybe you've been around here longer than I have I don't know if we want to do something formally or informal the formal might be that this committee might write to transportation and say we'd like to work with you between now and the end of the session to see if we can develop a program that will offset these emissions so that it's not just one step forward but as you said you know two steps one step back but two steps forward so we end up in a net positive on the emissions story even though we're granting an exclusion to other vehicles I think an informal conversation around that so we're not going to take a position on it we're not going to vote no I was going to ask for a committee vote just wanted to make sure people knew we were going to have a chance to watch we know we've been looking at it because you and mother are doing together right so that's really go to their committee that's going to be offered so thank you thank you again so committee we need to change gears again as you probably know it's from on housing conservation coalition and partners day in the state house and so this committee I'd say more than any other does a lot of work that is has a connection to allies outside and like to invite members of the coalition to speak so I think we have three three guests for closing 21 minutes that's seven minutes a piece they out of you back off we go um if you'd like to join us the table thank you for your patience sorry that the emissions thing was a little gnarly and took a little longer than we had on our schedule for that's okay hopefully this piece will be a little less gnarly a little more straightforward I do have a set of copies of handouts that we provided electronically to the committee so there are I think desired seven copies of each of several different things are these different than the one you gave us a few weeks ago yes they are yeah so I'll take it electronically and if there are extras happy to take the back and I make good use of them so for the record my name is Phil Huffman I'm the director of government relations and policy for the nature conservancy in Vermont it's a pleasure to be back with you all thank you for making time for us in what I know is a really really busy time for you all and you're kind of squeezing us in we appreciate it I'm really pleased to be here today my role alongside my nature conservancy one is as one of the co-chairs of the housing and conservation coalition and then I'm also here sort of as a vocal volunteer hat on as chair of the weightsfield conservation commission and I'm really pleased to have a couple of star witnesses who I'm going to turn it over to quickly so that they have a little more than some of my seven minutes but our board chair from the nature conservancy Lynn Bondrian from the town of Danby who will be talking about a TNC project that's in the works it's part of the pipeline of pending projects with VHC and then Cindy Carr next to her from my town our town of weightsfield who's been a wonderful community volunteer and activist on a recently completed VHCB project and Cindy's accompanied by her husband Al as well who's been a huge part of our moving things forward there welcome thank you and then there are also a host of other folks from various parts of the coalition here as well and a couple of things that I'll just say I won't go into the details of what's in my written statement but would encourage you to look at it for more of the supporting information the ask that we're here for today not just with you but with the legislature we're in I think 11 committees all together is to respectfully request support for full funding for VHCB at the statutory level that's been required according to statute for a long time 50 percent of the property transfer tax which for FY 20 with the 21.8 million dollars the governor's budget proposed budget takes things in the wrong direction and would actually result in a net cut of two and a half million dollars relative to current year funding this is at a time where the pipeline of projects current and pending projects for VHCB is at least as robust if not more so than ever their VHCB estimates there's something like 50 million dollars worth of pending projects on both the housing and the conservation side that are in the works that's more than three years worth of funding at current levels so we desperately need to try to bump that number up and to get to that full statutory level I think you all have pretty good familiarity with the wide range of benefits that VHCB projects provide on the housing affordable housing side addressing critical needs there and also on the conservation side for the whole host of things that this committee is front and center on here in the Senate and can you see us refocusing some of those dollars and saying the Vermont council on housing and conservation to just focus on water given you know our work on water I think the answer is yes to a point so as you undoubtedly know there's a significant amount of funding going through VHCB for water quality projects already and actually we were increasing that we were concerned to see part of the governor's proposal was to actually reduce that by 1.05 million dollars from the capital side of the allocation that's going in the wrong direction I think there is a need to increase funding for water quality related things and the the range of conservation projects that VHCB helps to support provide really critical water quality benefits both agricultural projects and forest land projects the ones that Lynn and Cindy will be talking about are illustrative with the way in which forest land conservation projects help to protect water quality too I think that I just want to add one other point which is that these VHCB investments are one time investments that have a long-term multi-generational impact that's not true for many other also important state programs but these are ones where if we conserve land that's enduring that's permanent the benefits that that provides will stay with us for a long time and that these projects on both sides housing and conservation always are bringing in significant leverage from other funding sources it's about four dollars of other sources for every dollar of state investment from federal and local governments from the private sector and whatnot so there's huge leverage again that's not the norm for many other state programs I'm going to stop there I'd like to turn it over to Cindy to speak for a few minutes about a project that we recently completed in the town of Waittsfield it wouldn't have happened without VHCB funding and we'll just try to keep an eye on the clock and keep things moving thank you as we're changing chairs I just want to catch up on my notes here so the the governor's budget proposal reuses the property transfer tax funding to you folks by how much well it's it's actually the combined package of property transfer tax and capital bill dollars would decrease by 1.05 million on the capital side and then this coming year FY 20 is the first year of debt service payment on the housing bond that was passed a couple of years ago so with if we hold the line on VHCB funding that million and a half is going to come out of existing funds so it's essentially a net reduction of project dollars of another million and a half so that's where the two and a half million reduction comes from thank you welcome thank you thanks for coming well thanks for the opportunity to talk about the VHCB grant to the band river valley it was really important the gateway project consisted of 110 acres which may seem very small well it's small compared to 420,000 acres that's been preserved however however it's a really important trap for the man river valley over 25 years donors and a small purchase cobbled together 640 acre municipal forest the forest has vital headwaters to the man river valley it has an incredible wildlife quarter one mile of unbroken ridge line it's scenic you can see it from all over the valley and people hiked it biked it behind it etc however no legal access to this town forest except for a very small footpath so there was 160 acre parcel adjacent to the town forest but it had been subdivided this is right here so this is the town forest and that's the gateway parcel in front that's the part there was that's the part exactly exactly so to understand the neighborhood upscale neighborhood high-end homes lots of pressure for development so the parcel was subdivided into three expensive lots unattainable for the town of waitstale too much money so the sephan spot 160 acres late 2014 and they quickly realized how important the gateway parcel at the end was to the town forest so they agreed to give the town a one-time opportunity to purchase 110 acres they took two lots combined it into one smaller lot put one house at the very beginning right here and then the remainder of the property was available to the town it was still a pretty big nut even though they took a lot of money off so we went to the conservation commission we went to the select board they were very enthusiastic they said this project isn't going to happen without two large grants so was a walker and the conservation commission put a lot of work into applying for the u.s. Forest Service legacy grant she's right the Vermont land trust was our co-partner helped us with all the fundraising grant writing and obtaining the vhcp grant so that $125,000 grant along with $256,000 which was one of eight donations given by the legacy fund that year in the whole country so these guys did a great job but anyway so those those grants enabled us to go back to the commission the conservation commission and the select board and they gave us their blessing that those grants enabled us to then go out and leverage individual donations so we had a goal of 75,000 we raised over 145,000 the excess funds are going to a 10-year stewardship program and new trail building bottom line economic benefits besides all the protections wildlife the ridge to river erosion control protecting headwaters besides all of that the economic benefits we have releasing to a maple sugar operation there's been a timber harvest but I think the most important thing is the recreation so we now have a parking area we now have a trail network that's easily accessible by everybody in the town and you probably all saw the Vermont biz report late 2016 so this was a study done by Vermont trail trailways trails and greenway council they studied four areas of trail networks and they discovered that 29.6 million dollars was brought into the state just with those four so this underlines how important just which one is for and I don't know which ones they were they didn't mention it but this this report was published in the Vermont biz magazine yeah that's where I picked it up I have it here so so in any event bottom line is we couldn't have done it without the donors without the landowners without the town councils but most of all because of the grants and especially VHCV terrifically important so thank you very much again VHCV 125,000 what was the total project total project was 700,000 by the time we got done so we leveraged five to one yeah yeah so well thank you everyone was in the state yeah thank you next we'll have Lynn Barber and come up to speak about appending nature conservancy project good morning good morning yes thank you committee members thank you for having me here yes I'm Lynn Bondret and I live in the town of Danby Vermont a little further south of here and I'm the volunteer chair for the nature conservancy board of trustees I won't go into everything that's in my statement in the interest of time because you have that in writing but I do my volunteer work for the nature conservancy because I believe in its mission which is to protect lands and waters which all life depends and so I appreciate all your efforts to work in Vermont and you're the ones that only do the job so thank you well thank you I'm I'm pleased to be part of a very small part of it so I'm here today to talk about the latest project to protect forest and waters of Vermont and the importance of VHCV funding to that and this is a 3,500 acre parcel on the Gleed Mountain in the towns of Windham and South London Dairy you may be familiar with that parcel for a number of reasons it was in the news around windmills and things a while ago I'm not sure what year that was but but as long ago as 1990 TNC identified this Gleed Mountain parcel as a really important opportunity to protect a large and intact forest tract and over these many years TNC has not lost its desire to do so and has been continually trying to make this happen this acquisition will safeguard a rich forest block for wildlife habitat not only does the site contain one of the most significant beach stands in southern Vermont which we all know are important to our bear population for food in the summer and the fall but it's also important for the northern New England forest birds such as the black throated blue warbler and the black bernie and warblers the properties a mix of northern harbors and red spruce forest and 95 percent of the property contains states significant natural communities the project will also help improve water quality by securing nearly the entirety of the upper Cobb Brook watershed that flows into Hamilton Falls and Jamaica State Park and West River in brook trout habitat and water quality and this it's an a1 quality stream will be protected and enhanced as we the nature concerns the works to remove culverts that are high above the water in many places and adds add large food support to the healthy stream ecosystem it will also help reduce the vulnerability of communities downstream for flooding the vast forest lands on this property will play a key role in absorbing rainwater and storm storms large and small and slowing the runoff of snow melt and the restoration efforts in Cobb Brook will help the stream to function more naturally again that's putting together those culverts and letting the ecosystems function so for the past 20 years this property has been posted it has been available only to a very exclusive to you who had the rights to hunt on that property it's kind of neat to go there and see some of the old hunting stands that were there but it was very exclusive and the public was not allowed to be on the property so this acquisition will now allow this property to be open to the public for the perpetuity for hiking fishing snowshoeing and hunting we think this is really important you know countering that trend posted lands which keep people you know off of the land and off from enjoying it and and the well-being that comes from enjoying it so protecting large forest blocks like Gleed Mountain is a critical strategy in helping Vermont offer the impacts of climate change Gleed Mountain will help Vermonters meet the goals of the agency of natural resources conservation design program and by protecting our present biodiversity and also maintaining a network of lands that are connected to allow wildlife and plant to move and adjust in a changing climate there is a map that some of you may have seen it's it's been on social media it's it's comes it was produced by one of our scientists at TNC after a lot of research and it shows how as climate change is happening how our species diversity is so important to maintain these areas where there is maximum diversity for species and the types of soils and location that Gleed Mountain is is key that's why it was identified in 1990 it's a pinch point it's an important zone for climate change as species are moving northward and uphill as they're adapting to climate change so this property is important now and and extremely so into the into the future um sorry how big a parcel it's 3,500 acres yeah it's a large it's 3,500 acres and um and the cost is 3.5 million dollars the total cost for the project is estimated at four we would be requesting eight hundred thousand dollars for the project so as with Cindy's project this is a five-to-one match for every dollar um that we can receive from housing conservation there'd be five dollars coming in from other sources um I guess I'd like to add that you know in addition to my role of chair of TNC um my paying job is that I am the executive director for the workforce investment board in Rutland and my civic duty is that I'm the chair of the Dandy Select Board and so in both these roles I see the importance of housing and conservation constantly certainly from my employers in Rutland County I'm hearing always about the need and the trouble attracting young people to jobs that are critical for our region and that affordable housing is part of that and then as chair of the Dandy Select Board I'm trying to pass a budget that is inflated by 4.6% this year because of the storm damage we incurred in July of 2017 so I really see you know the importance of these forest lands for protecting into the future and you know if we had had the systems in place that we needed naturally we could have you know foreseen nearly a million dollars worth of damage in our town so I urge you all to please support funding housing and conservation board in accordance with the long-standing statutory requirements and thank you very much quick question for your town so as you're rebuilding are you getting technical assistance and being able to rebuild a more resilient inner yes very much so and very importantly so um so we're working with FEMA as well as the agency's natural resources and we're working to rebuild bridges that were wiped out they're being built to much larger specifications than they were before and we're also looking at preventative measures on certain stream banks as well as replacing other culverts with box culverts and yeah and they're big ticket items for our town you know so we do get we do get help from the from FEMA and from the state but still the the dollars that are left to come out of our own pocket even though we have a pass through the corridor where we're trying to pass a report or we have flood hazard um you know it's significant for our town and our town is not a wealthy town beautiful spot yeah thank you I come all the way you know I pass by on my way because the sign looked like yesterday I don't know if you noticed did you notice it may have been did you notice or not I didn't notice okay no I should have stopped I should have stopped I'll check it out on the way no no no it's no plow fatality yeah it's been known to have boxes all right well thank you very much thank you again and uh thank you to everyone for the work you're doing and for coming in and helping us know some stories from out in the field thank you very thank you again for your time thank you